The Tea Party has come under attack by those on the "left". So, what do they believe?

Quote:

What does the Tea Party stand for?

While Democrats have attacked Tea Party patriots as a right-wing fringe element who are out of touch with mainstream Americans, and Republicans have tried to hijack the conservative Tea Party logo, the question begs to be asked, what are the Tea Parties really all about?

Tea Party endorsements are not handed out to either party. They go to individuals with proven conservative voting track records who adhere to strict constitutional principles that our Founding Fathers espoused.

Tea Party patriots are normal, everyday, working people who are fed up with having to balance their family budgets while Congress and the lawyers in Washington, D.C., cook up ways to “tax the living daylights out of us” and then hire thousands of IRS hooligans to come to our homes and hit us over the head with their tax-and-spend billy clubs.

We also believe in American sovereignty — not being ruled by the United Nations. We’re not convinced that globalism is great; we want our military airplanes made here in the USA.

Lastly, we believe the Constitution is a finite document created by our Founding Fathers to limit the scope, control and power of government, not give it a blank check to drain the lifeblood out of the heartland of our great nation.

The problem for me with the Tea Party is that they :Zealotously stand to their principles, disavowing common senseHave no plan to get us safely from point a to point bChange the rules as they go

The idea of fiscal responsibility in Washington is long overdue. It would just be nice if some party who was ruled by common sense stepped in to fix the issue.

I think you should start to consider what drove the Tea Party to form. You seem to bash them at every turn, but look at what they are fighting against...zealots on the other side of the spectrum. Compromise will come and I'm sure their stance will soften a bit on some issues, but if they come to the table as previous conservatives have they'll just take it on the chin from the left.

You argued that you are for fiscal conservatism. Would that even be in the discussion in Washington if not for the Tea Party? They have accomplished a lot and while not every member in their ranks is perfect they actually prevented this country from going off the cliff. Just imagine what Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, clean raise of the debt ceiling, etc. would have been without their voice of opposition.

You don't have to agree with everything they do, and I'll add that I don't, but I tip my cap to them for railroading the business as usual crowd and getting people to think.

That may be because they are decentralized groups of citizens who are sick of the entitlement mentality our government espouses rather an an organized interest group or group of politicians.

I'm not sure you're entirely informed of what the Tea Party is.

I believe I understand what they are. My problem is that all the tea party candidates seem to do in Congress is say "we won't vote for anything that isn't 100% of what we want." They don't present plans that will a) do what they want and b) show how they will deal with the vast negative repercussions of their actions.

As an example, earlier this year, before the debt ceiling debacle escalated to what it became, there was a lot of talk about how they had no intention of ever raising the debt ceiling. They said we just need to cut spending. Problem is that the amount of spending needed to be cut had to come from more than just discretionary spending. Yet I have not seen any plans for how the tea party would cut military spending, reform Social Security or Medicaid. And no explanation of how they would deal with shutting down entire wings of the government.

It's great to have a belief. But it's useless when a "leader" won't do anything. Especially in a time when we truly need our leaders to step up and do SOMETHING!

My problem is that all the tea party candidates seem to do in Congress is say "we won't vote for anything that isn't 100% of what we want."

How is that different from the far left candidates in Congress who didn't support the bill because it actually decreased the rate of spending? They were willing to go into default because their entitlement programs were going to grow more slowly. Not that they were going to get cut, because nothing actually got cut, but because they were going to grow more slowly...

The word "cut" is used in a misleading fashion by politicians.

Quote:

They don't present plans that will a) do what they want

So what does Cut, Cap and Balance do?

Quote:

b) show how they will deal with the vast negative repercussions of their actions.

Such as?

Quote:

Problem is that the amount of spending needed to be cut had to come from more than just discretionary spending. Yet I have not seen any plans for how the tea party would cut military spending, reform Social Security or Medicaid.

Have you heard about Paul Ryan's bill? It didn't mention Social Security, but he did go after military spending and healthcare programs, including Medicaid. The Democrats buried it under a wave of attacks by telling seniors they were going to lose their health and social security benefits, even though it didn't touch social security and people would be grandfathered into the reforms to health care programs for seniors.

I believe I understand what they are. My problem is that all the tea party candidates seem to do in Congress is say "we won't vote for anything that isn't 100% of what we want." They don't present plans that will a) do what they want and b) show how they will deal with the vast negative repercussions of their actions.

The key word you wrote was "seem". What you described is basically what the Democratic Party has become. People elected by members of the Tea Party are doing what their constituents asked them to do which is basically oppose the agenda of Obama, not saying I want this so give it to me. The downgrade, current market volatility, etc. is short term stuff that is a consequence of hopeful long term fixing.

The Paul Ryan plan addressed a lot of things and the negative repercussions are simply the short term pain of those in the entitlement programs. Not sure there is much negativity there outside of politicians losing votes and talking heads screaming on TV and radio.

People elected by members of the Tea Party are doing what their constituents asked them to do which is basically oppose the agenda of Obama

Go back to my original point. All they "seem" to do is nothing. It's easy to say you don't want what the other guy wants. But they need to have a plan to do what they want to do. Otherwise we are paralyzed and that leads to disaster.

jammer wrote:

The downgrade, current market volatility, etc. is short term stuff that is a consequence of hopeful long term fixing.

I disagree. I don't see any kind of long-term positive in what we have going on. And the "gains" they made will be sucked out of the country because of the rising interest rates and depreciating $US this has caused.

jammer wrote:

The Paul Ryan plan addressed a lot of things

The Ryan plan: wasn't that the "plan" said things like "within 10 years, discretionary spending will be reduced to 2% of GDP" (or something similar. I'm not going to look it up), but completely failed to say where those cuts were going to be made? Are we eliminating the DOE, DOJ, DOD, FDA? How was he going to cut 75% of the budget. It wasn't a plan. It was a speech to rally his troops. But you can't run a country like that.

jammer wrote:

and the negative repercussions are simply the short term pain of those in the entitlement programs.

This is where I say that the Tea Party advocates are narrow minded. How do you expect to take $1T out of the economy overnight and have it not make major problems? Forget those who are out on the street (now we need more law enforcement dollars to deal with these people turning to crime to feed their bellies). How about the 1,000's of people out of work who were paid by these programs. And the fact that they will lose their homes, the real estate market will get even worse, creating even more bankruptcites. Pretending these problems won't exist and be a massive drain on the economy is just foolish. You aren't talking about minor changes. You are talking about a fundamental shift. And denial isn't a plan for dealing with it.

jammer wrote:

The Tea Party is a movement, not a political party.

Then the "movement" has to do something other than oppose Obama. Come up with a workable plan.

Narrow minded is thinking that the current system is viable. Are there consequences, sure. But you live in CT and I live in MA. How many unnecessary state jobs are there? How many unnecessary handouts are there? If those things stopped and those folks actually had to find jobs in the private sector and alter their standard of living it would be a bad start? What exactly do you want the government to do? Its obvious the blend doesn't work because the system can be taken advantage of too easily.

The Ryan Plan was a 10 year plan to start altering things, not sure that qualifies as overnight. It addresses a lot of things that begin to cut down on excessive spending. Again, you seem to be saying these reps in Congress are supposed to magically solve all problems. No, its the start of reform.

This country can't afford to have half its population paid for by the other half.

Narrow minded is thinking that the current system is viable. Are there consequences, sure. But you live in CT and I live in MA. How many unnecessary state jobs are there? How many unnecessary handouts are there? If those things stopped and those folks actually had to find jobs in the private sector and alter their standard of living it would be a bad start? What exactly do you want the government to do? Its obvious the blend doesn't work because the system can be taken advantage of too easily.

The Ryan Plan was a 10 year plan to start altering things, not sure that qualifies as overnight. It addresses a lot of things that begin to cut down on excessive spending. Again, you seem to be saying these reps in Congress are supposed to magically solve all problems. No, its the start of reform.

This country can't afford to have half its population paid for by the other half.

I don't think the current system is viable. But cutting it off at the knees is a far more painful way to change it than just simply bending down.

Come up with a plan to bend down and I'll give it a lot of support.

And expecting some level...ANY level... of detail behind a "plan" is not asking him to "magically solve all problems." An broad outline doesn't count as a plan.

The fundamental change we need is for people to start understating that not everyone gets to live a life of luxury.

Sorry to say it, but not everyone is equal. Some have the talents to succeed and make it big. Some are the fortunate beneficiaries of their parents/family's hard work. And some just have the drive, willingness to take risks, and ability to make themselves better than what their limitations may be. I don't think those folks need to take care of the rest or bring them up to their level of economic success.

I have no sympathy for the person who does just enough, collects a paycheck, and expects the system to take care of them. They deserve mediocrity.

Even if it doesn't have a chance of passing (which didn't stop them with cut, cap and balance, so I'm failing to see your point here), if they don't have a real plan, they have nothing.

Quote:

The responsibility of a movement isn't to come up with a plan. That's what leaders are for.

Maybe I'm coming off the wrong way then. Because I am talking about the "leaders" in Congress.... those Tea Party backed congresspeople.

John Boehner and Eric Cantor are the leaders in the House.

They are not Tea Party politicians.

That was supposed to be "their" leaders in Congress, not "the" leaders in Congress. It may not be a party, and just a "movement," but a movement to do what? Stop Obama from doing anything? How about an actual statement of what the tea party representatives (their backed and elected officials) would actually do.

It may not be a party, and just a "movement," but a movement to do what? Stop Obama from doing anything? How about an actual statement of what the tea party representatives (their backed and elected officials) would actually do.

With all due respect, I'm going to have to say it again.

It seems you're not fully aware of what the Tea Party is and what they stand for.

There are multiple Tea Party websites out there that clearly state what they stand for and what type of individuals they are going to support.

As a matter of fact, the original post in this thread contains a summary of that philosophy as well.

I've said that in other threads. But also, why the focus on what I would cut. Surely this applies to me as an individual too...

Quote:

The responsibility of a movement isn't to come up with a plan. That's what leaders are for.

I was asking what you would do, not cut. Everything has a consequence. Anything we cut, reform or rework will have both positive and negative impacts on various people.

You made a good point on the individual aspect. When surveyed, of course people will generally say "yeah, a balanced approach." But if it effects them they lose their mind. Whatever happens its not going to universally applauded.

If the plan is to reduce the amount of people on government dependence by any means necessary then I am behind it.

If the Tea Party doesn't believe in representing the people, then it's just as washed up as the other two parties. What do they "believe" in? Why does there have to a be list? It should depend on the politician and who they are representing.

I like the message at the beginning when the tea party came into its own. But then they have to bring religion into politics & the social issue stuff as well , I dont know ... just seems like another party playing to their base.No matter what the party its just about individuals trying to win elections for their own prosperity.